It's wrong for ratepayers to pay toward San Onofre shutdown

UCAN supports imposing $3.3 billion on ratepayers for the failed San Onofre nuclear plant because the “investigation” into the plant’s closure was resolved (“Ratepayers get relief with San Onofre deal,” Op-Ed, May 22).

However, no such investigation was conducted; the California Public Utilities Commission stalled it for 18 months, while the plan was hatched to evade the investigation altogether.

The case for relieving ratepayers for the costs of the failed nuclear plant is strong. The steam generators were installed without the required safety license, they failed within two years; they were supposed to last 20. The plant operator has admitted there were design errors in the steam generators. There are other sources of funds to recover from besides ratepayers, such as the manufacturer of the steam generators and the plant operator’s insurance company.

Charging ratepayers for these mistakes is unreasonable and unlawful, because only reasonable and just expenses can be imposed on ratepayers under California law.

UCAN is wrong when it argues it could take years of costly litigation before the commission makes a decision. The plant operator admitted the case could be concluded by the end of the year. The cost of resolving the conflict will not remotely approach the $3.3 billion, the amount UCAN proposes ratepayers assume under the settlement.

The delay tactics should not be rewarded.

The PUC exists for only one purpose: protecting ratepayers from unreasonable rates. Requiring ratepayers to pay $3.3 billion for the San Onofre plant, which will produce no more power because of the plant’s operator’s unreasonable conduct, is wrong and unreasonable. UCAN’s capitulation only strengthens the argument against the settlement.